Opinion
2:17-cr-00142-JAD-VCF
10-11-2022
United States of America, Plaintiff v. Brian Keith Wright, Defendant
ORDER DENYING MOTION
[ECF NOS. 223, 225]
JENNIFER A. DORSEY, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Brian Wright was found guilty of assault on a federal officer in 2019, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed his conviction. Through a largely incomprehensible and narrative motion, Wright sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in February of this year. Because his motion contained no legal argument for modification or vacatur of his sentence and the record conclusively established that he is not entitled to the relief he seeks, I denied his motion without directing a response from the government. Six months later, Wright filed a “Motion Requesting this Court to Grant 2255 due to the Government's Consent,” arguing that “the government conceded to the facts within [his] 2255 due to its 8 months of complete silence.” The government opposes the request.
ECF No. 221.
ECF No. 223.
ECF No. 228.
ECF No. 230.
ECF No. 231.
Wright is mistaken about the history of, and procedural rules applicable to, his § 2255 motion. First, the government did not ignore his motion for eight months-this court denied it six months ago, mooting any need for response. More importantly, the government never had an obligation to respond to the motion in the first place. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and Section 2255 Proceedings requires the court to dismiss or deny a motion “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” If the court does not so find, only then must it order the government “to file an answer, motion, or other response within a fixed time . . . .” Because it plainly appeared from Wright's motion that he was not entitled to the relief he was requesting, this court denied the motion and did not direct the government to respond. The government therefore had no obligation to respond to Wright's § 2255 motion, so its failure to do so could not be construed as consent.
Habeas Rule 4.
Id.
ECF No.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Brian Wright's motion [ECF No. 230] is DENIED.